Last Month, the Maui County Council Voted to Settle County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, a High-Profile CWA Suit
On September 20, 2019, the Maui County Council voted to settle County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, a high-profile case involving the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the case this November.
While the Council voted 5-4 to resolve the case, the litigation may not be over. Several council members, along with Maui County Mayor Mike Victorino, maintain that the county can’t formally dismiss the case without the Mayor’s approval. So far, Victorino has resisted settlement. If the settlement proceeds, Maui County will be required to pursue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the injection wells and invest approximately $2.5 million in wastewater reuse systems.
County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund
As discussed in greater detail in prior articles, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund revolves around whether the CWA regulates pollution that reaches surface water via groundwater. The federal courts of appeals are deeply divided on the question.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted an expansive interpretation of the CWA’s reach. It held that that the CWA does not require that the point source itself convey the pollutants directly into the navigable water. According to the Ninth Circuit, the County of Maui was liable under the CWA because (1) the County discharged pollutants from a point source; (2) the pollutants were fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water such that the discharge was the functional equivalent of a discharge into the navigable water; and (3) the pollutants reached navigable waters at greater than de minimis levels.
“At bottom, this case is about preventing the County from doing indirectly that which it cannot do directly. The County could not under the CWA build an ocean outfall to dispose of pollutants directly into the Pacific Ocean without an NPDES permit,” the Ninth Circuit explained. “It cannot do so indirectly either to avoid CWA liability. To hold otherwise would make a mockery of the CWA’s prohibitions.”
The Ninth Circuit’s decision is at odds with the Sixth Circuit. In Clean Water Act Network v. Tenn. Valley Auth. and Kentucky Waterways All. v. Kentucky Utils. Co., the appeals court declined to impose liability for indirect discharges of pollution to federally protected water via groundwater. That case, which was on the Supreme Court’s docket, also settled.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the CWA is also narrow. According to EPA guidance issued in April, discharges of pollutants to groundwater are “categorically excluded” from the CWA’s permitting requirements. “Informed by [public] comments and based on a holistic analysis of the statute, its text, structure, and legislative history, the Agency concludes that the best, if not the only, reading of the CWA is that Congress intentionally chose to exclude all releases of pollutants to groundwaters from the NPDES program, even where pollutants are conveyed to jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater,” the EPA wrote.
Another CWA Case for the Supreme Court
Assuming that the Maui County case is settled, the U.S. Supreme Court may agree to take up yet another case involving the CWA. In Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP v. Upstate Forever, the Fourth Circuit adopted similar reasoning, holding that the discharge of a pollutant that moves through groundwater before reaching navigable waters may constitute a discharge of a pollutant, within the meaning of the CWA. However, it further held that a plaintiff must allege a direct hydrological connection between groundwater and navigable waters in order to state a claim under the CWA for a discharge of a pollutant that passes through groundwater.
If the Court agrees to hear Kinder Morgan, the justices will again be in the position to resolve the circuit split over the scope of the CWA. Given the potential ramifications for the regulated community, the attorneys of the Scarinci Hollenbeck Environmental Law Group will continue to closely monitor the cases, and we encourage readers to check back for updates.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers
Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?
IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next
When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
BESS Interconnection: Managing Grid, Cost, and Schedule Risk
For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Navigating Director and Officer Liability in Times of Financial Distress
Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Before You Buy: Managing Real Estate and Permitting Risk for BESS Projects in New York and New Jersey
For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
